Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add a lot of dummy returns to avoid warnings with NO_NORETURN

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> I would need to clarify with s/introduce noise/introduce more noise/; the
> existing codebase is not noise-free.
> 
> But I do not see much point in making things worse, only to squelch
> "reaches end of non void function" warnings that will be given under the
> NO_NORETURN workaround configuration.

Can you please give specific guidance what I should do to make
the patchkit acceptable?

Current options are:

1) use original minimal patchkit (which had two warnings or so)
1b) use original minimal patchkit with warnings fixed
2) use global patch proposal for NO_NORETURN (= lots of warnings)
2b) use patch proposal + additional patch to fix warnings (posted here)
3) something I missed.

Which one do you prefer? If 3 I would prefer specific guidance.

Thanks,

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]